Wakilii

Uganda v Mwesigwa Rashid and Others (Criminal Case 40 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1130 · 2025 Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
No case to answer submission in a murder trial following close of prosecution case
Decision
A1 acquitted and discharged unless held on other lawful charges. A2 and A3 put to defence.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that while evidence established a land dispute and motive on the part of A1, no sufficient evidence demonstrated his participation in the murder. The only evidence against A1 was of motive through prior threats, which fell short of the proximate requirement established in Waihi v Uganda. All corroborated evidence of participation pointed to A2 and A3. The court found no prima facie case against A1 and acquitted him under section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Outcome

A1 acquitted and discharged unless held on other lawful charges. A2 and A3 put to defence.

Facts

A1 (Mwesigwa Rashid) was charged alongside his two sons A2 and A3 with the murder of Kahwite Africano in January 2025. The deceased had purchased land from A1, who later demanded its return or additional payment of UGX 2 million. Prior threats had been reported to police in October 2024. On 21 May 2025, PW2 witnessed A2 and A3 confront the deceased while carrying timber. The deceased told PW2 her presence had saved his life. After the murder, a police canine tracked a scent from the crime scene to the bedroom of A2 and A3, passing by A1. A1 had previously lost the lower half of his leg after being shot in a prior altercation and was using crutches. At the close of the prosecution case, the court found a prima facie case against A2 and A3 but considered whether sufficient evidence existed against A1.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to establish a prima facie case requiring A1 (Mwesigwa Rashid) to be put to his defence on the charge of murder.

Orders

  • A1 (Mwesigwa Rashid) found not guilty of the offence of murder.
  • A1 (Mwesigwa Rashid) acquitted.
  • A1 (Mwesigwa Rashid) discharged unless held on other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

No Case to Answer — Test for Prima Facie Case
A prima facie case is established when the evidence adduced is such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind on the law and evidence, would convict the accused if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence.
No Case to Answer — Sufficiency of Evidence
Under section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, a finding of sufficiency of evidence does not require detailed examination of the evidence, but rather a finding that evidence exists on the record to require the accused person to be put on defence.
Circumstantial Evidence — Prior Threats in Murder Cases
Evidence of a prior threat or announced intention to kill is admissible against an accused charged with murder, but the court must consider the manner in which the threat was made, whether it was made bitterly, the reason for the threat, and the time interval between the threat and the death.
Murder — Proof of Participation as Essential Ingredient
In a charge of murder, participation by the accused is an essential ingredient that must be proved. Evidence of motive alone, without evidence of participation, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Sufficiency of Evidence — Scintilla of Evidence Insufficient
A prima facie case cannot be established by a mere scintilla of evidence or by any amount of worthless, discredited prosecution evidence. The law requires a showing of sufficient evidence.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Rananlal T. Bhatt v R (EA 332 of 1957)
  • Uganda v Drasiku (Criminal Case No. 14 of 2013)
  • Waihi and Another v Uganda (EA 278 of 1968)
  • Uganda v Bwambale Nathan and 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 17 of 2024)
  • Bhatt v R (EA 322 of 1957)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Mwesigwa Rashid and Others (Criminal Case 40 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1130 (23 October 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.